Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

Mining giant Xstrata has issued a pessimistic forecast on job security at its north and west Queensland copper mining operations....commodity prices remain unstable and future cuts cannot be ruled out.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"if you want me to stay out of your fight with Ben, then don't drag me back in again just to score points off him."

Ben brought you up - I responded. I thought you made a complete mess out of the left-handedness, and I think that your stance, as shown from you poetic efforts, on the importance of style elements was glaringly different from Leanders.
Can i take it that you knew all about the connection between left-handedness and backwards leaning? If so, don´t you think it was a strage thing to do to when you posted in a manner that pointed in the other direction totally?
And can I take it that you concur with Leander, that there may be A NUMBER of reasons explaning why a capital G changes the way this particular G apparently did? Or do you still mean that it is an unsurmountable hindernace?

Important questions, Crystal. I am much interested in your answers, particularly to the latter one.

Fisherman

[Crystal]

That wasn't the case though, Fisherman, was it?

Crystal referred to the dissimilarity with the capital G's.

Leander referred to the dissimilarity with with the capital G's.

They both referred to them as militating against the possibility of a match, just as they both recognise that those differences are nonetheless insufficient to "rule him out" conclusively. That isn't a difference in judgement at all, so your "Crystal versus Leander" contstruct is a demonstrably false and misleading one.

Regards,
Ben

As I have repeatedly said.

[The Good Michael]

in the recent spate of violence in Karachi, the country’s business hub. In a brief chat with reporters at Multan, the Prime Minister was questioned whether he sees a foreign hand behind the incidents of arson, loot and violence in Karachi that has left over two dozen killed.

“It can’t be ruled out,” Gilani said.

[Fisherman]

Ben, to Mike:

"He's saying it's possible, certainly, but with no more enthusiasm than that."

...until you read post two, that is! And just like Mike tells you, "This statement is vague enough to go either way. I suggest that an expert, not wanting to commit himself to something, would use it to mean very possible while covering himself by understating."
That is EXACTLY what I am saying too, and post two bears this out eminently.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Lhasa Fresh unrest in Tibet cannot be ruled out nearly a year after riots in the regional capital Lhasa because Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, is determined to foment trouble, Chinese officials said on Tuesday.


In the above case, the intention is that it is very likely, and given the history of Tibet/China relations, it is almost a foregone conclusion.

[Ben]

Ben brought you up - I responded. I thought you made a complete mess out of the left-handedness

But Crystal is a professional in her field.

She is therefore unlikely to care very much about what you choose to mischaracterize as a "mess". I care, however, as I find it particularly insipid, especially after you criticised me from calling the professionalism of Leander into doubt. If Crystal thought there was an "insurmountable hunderance" to Toppy being the witness, she'd have ruled him out as impossible. But she's never done that.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"They both referred to them as militating against the possibility of a match, just as they both recognise that those differences are nonetheless insufficient to "rule him out" conclusively. That isn't a difference in judgement at all, so your "Crystal versus Leander" contstruct is a demonstrably false and misleading one."

When Crystal tells me that she concurs with Leander, that there may have been a number of explanations to the changes, we can return to the topic.
Until this happens we have one expert who has said that the change has a number of possible explanations, and another that only tells us that the G is an obstacle, without adding the vital information that it is an obstacle that may have a number of explanations to it, and thus NOT an obstacle that necessarily means very much.

So no, Ben - wrong again!

Fisherman

[Ben]

"Cannot be ruled out" never ever means "probable", Mike.

Not unless the writer or speaker is deeply sarcastic, or has a truly awful, ghastly, and dreadful command of language.

Leander obviously belongs in neither catergory.

[Crystal]

Fine Fisherman. I never said it was an insurmountable difference. You can tell the world I did as many times as you like, but it won't change the fact. Is there something wrong with your memory perhaps? Or is it that you wilfully misunderstand?

I have not, I have never, ruled out entirely the possibility that Toppy and Hutch are the same.

I can see that there are similarities in the hands.

I can see that there are disimilarities in the hands.

I am not satisfied, on current evidence, that the match is close enough to warrant the view that Toppy and Hutch are one and the same.

The nature of the similarities and disimilarities is significant. The 'G' is a different form. It bears further analysis.

That's all. Nothing for you to argue against. Nothing wildly contentious. Only a refusal to tow the line - EITHER line - until I have more information.

How is that in any way unreasonable?

I don't give a stuff about the left-handed nonsense, Fisherman. It doesn't figure in this equation. What's it doing here anyhow?

And I don't care who brought me up - you asked me to butt out - keep me out of your brawl with Ben. I'm not interested.

[Sam Flynn]

Crystal referred to the dissimilarity with the capital G's.

Leander referred to the dissimilarity with with the capital G's.

They both referred to them as militating against the possibility of a match

They don't militate against any such possibility, unless we were matching on capital "G"s alone, or that other "outlier", the terminating lower-case "n". Fortunately, we have other letters that match closely, because "eorgeutchinso" remains remarkably consistent, and - if we exclude the discrepant H on 1888p1 - that string expands to "eorgeHutchinso". Given that we have 16 letters in "GeorgeHutchinson", and only the terminators differ to any appreciable extent, that's an 87.5% match over a period of 23 years.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

" ... commodity prices remain unstable and future cuts cannot be ruled out."

Yes, Mike, I know. And if I had the time, I could provide a million other examples. But it cant be ruled out that Ben will keep teling us that this is a VEEEERY uncommon practice, can it?

It can´t be ruled out that this post was written by
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But Crystal is a professional in her field."

Move aside, please - I am discussing this with Crystal, and she don´t take kindly to other posters bringing her name up.

Fisherman

[Ben]

...until you read post two, that is!

Where he conveniently starts to say everything you erroneously claimed he said in his initial letter? No, I don't think I'll read post two, since it's likely to increase my very grave suspicions that something fishy went on, or, more likely, your obvious bias and misleading information about the number of viable Hutchinson candidates for the witness corrupted his views.

Until this happens we have one expert who has said that the change has a number of possible explanations, and another that only tells us that the G is an obstacle

Leander says it's an obstacle, if you read his post correctly, since it counted "against" the perceived similarities. He just doesn't think that the obstacle is sufficient to rule out Toppy as impossible, and neither does Crystal.

[Crystal]

Microarguments.

Just for the sake of it. Ah well, if it makes you happy..

And not 'other posters' Fisherman. You.

Something 'Fishy' Ben? Was that meant to be funny?